CABAL vs KAPUNAN

FACTS:

A letter-complaint was filed charging petitioner Manuel Cabal, then Chief of Staff of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines, with "graft, corrupt practices, unexplained wealth, conduct unbecoming of
an officer and gentleman dictatorial tendencies, giving false statements of his as sets and liabilities
in 1958 and other equally reprehensible acts". A committee of five (5) members was formed to
investigate the charge of unexplained wealth contained in said letter-complaint and submit its report
and recommendations as soon as possible. At the beginning of the investigation, on September 15,
1961, the Committee, upon request of complainant Col. Maristela, or considered petitioner herein to
take the witness stand and be sworn to as witness for Maristela, in support of his aforementioned
charge of unexplained wealth. Thereupon, petitioner objected, personally and through counsel, to
said request of Col. Maristela and to the aforementioned order of the Committee, invoking his
constitutional right against self-incrimination.

ISSUE:

W/N the investigation being conducted by the Committee above referred to is administrative, not
criminal, in nature; that the legal provision relied upon by petitioner in relation to preliminary
investigations (Section '08-C, Republic Act No. 409, as amended by Republic Act No. 1201) is
inapplicable to contempt proceedings

HELD:

In this connection, it should be noted that, although said Committee was created to investigate the
administrative charge of unexplained wealth, there seems to be no question that Col. Maristela does
not seek the removal of petitioner herein as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. It
seems, likewise conceded that the purpose of the charge against petitioner is to apply the provisions
of Republic Act No. 1379, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft Law, which authorizes the
forfeiture to the State of property of a public officer or employee which is manifestly out of proportion
to his salary as such public officer or employee and his other lawful income and the income from
legitimately acquired property. Such for forfeiture has been held, however, to partake of the nature of
a penalty.

As a consequence, proceedings for forfeiture of proper are deemed criminal or penal, and, hence,
the exemption of defendants in criminal case from the obligation to be witnesses against themselves
are applicable thereto. No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself.